[696W-{64-2/65} On State and Religion: PW Vol. IV, p. 11]
[P. 11] {FEUER} “ … diverse fellowships of individuals equally-entitled in their groups make up the parties in the State, the larger owners striving for a state of permanence, the less favoured for its alteration. But even the party of alteration desires nothing beyond the bringing about a state of matters in which it, too, would wish no further change; and thus the State’s main object is upheld from first to last by those whose profit lies in permanence.
{FEUER} Stability is therefore the intrinsic tendence of the State. And rightly; for it constitutes withal the unconscious aim in every higher human effort to get beyond the primal need: namely, to reach a freer evolution of spiritual attributes, which is always cramped so long as hindrances forestall the satisfaction of that first root-need. Everyone thus strives by nature for stability, for maintenance of quiet: ensured can it only be, however, when the maintenance of existing conditions is not the preponderant interest of one party only.” [696W-{64-2/65} On State and Religion: PW Vol. IV, p. 11]
[697W-{64-2/65} On State and Religion: PW Vol. IV, p. 12-13]
[P. 12] “ … as the King on one hand gives assurance of the State’s solidity, on the other his loftiest interest soars high beyond the State. Personally he has naught in common with the interests of parties, but his sole concern is that the conflict of these interests should be adjusted, precisely for the safety of the whole. His sphere is therefore equity, and where this is unattainable the exercise of grace (Gnade). Thus, as against the party interests, he is the representative of purely-human interests, and in the eyes of the party-seeking citizen he therefore occupies in truth a position wellnigh superhuman. To him is consequently accorded a reverence such as the highest citizen would [P. 13] never dream of distantly demanding for himself; and here, at this summit of the State where we see its ideal reached, we therefore meet that side of human apperception (Anschauungsweise) which, in distinction from the faculty of recognising the nearest need, we will call the power of Wahn. [* Translator’s Footnote: “ ‘Wahn-Vermoegen.’ As the word ‘Wahn’ is frequently used in these pages, and is absolutely untranslatable, I shall mostly retain it as it stands. It does not so much mean an ‘illusion’ or ‘delusion,’ in general, as a semi-conscious feigning (such as the ‘legal fiction’), a ‘dream,’ or a ‘symbolical aspiration’ – its etymological kinship being quite as near to ‘fain’ as to ‘feign’; but the content will leave the reader in no doubt as to its particular application in any sentence. It will be remembered that ‘Wahn’ plays an important part in Hans Sachs’ monologue in Die Meistersinger, act iii; the poem of that drama, containing the Wahn-monologue in a somewhat more extended form than its ultimate version, had already been published in 1862.”] {SCHOP} All those, to wit, whose simple powers of cognisance do not extend beyond what bears upon their nearest need – and they form by far the largest portion of mankind – would be unable to recognise the importance of a Royal Prerogative whose exercise has no directly cognisable relation with their nearest need, to say nothing of the necessity of bestirring themselves for its upholding, nay, even of bringing the King their highest offerings, the sacrifice of goods and life, if there intervened no form of apperception entirely opposed to ordinary cognisance.This form is Wahn.” [697W-{64-2/65} On State and Religion: PW Vol. IV, p. 12-13]
